Hans Arild Runde
Number of games in database: 19
Years covered: 1997 to 2008
Last FIDE rating: 1923
Highest rating achieved in database: 2054Overall record: +7 -5 =7 (55.3%)* * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.

On January 1, 2010, Henrik Carlsen wrote "We would also like to thank the many chess enthusiasts contributing to chess as spectators and commentators, ..., chess blogs (with significant contributions from for instance Hans Arild Runde ...)".
(Source: http://blog.magnuschess.com/1262373...)

frogbert: <In the University South Zone tournament I took part in recently here in India, there were no such requirements.>

i don't think fide or anyone *requires* you to follow such procedures, but the entire purpose of having a team captain is to allow one person to "control" the team's choices so as to do what's best for the team. and while the team captain indeed is allowed to make suggestions about offering/accepting draws for one or more of his/her players, *no other* player/person might do anything like that; this is essentially what's covered by regulations.

<there is every likelihood that relations between you and the captain would be strained, to put it mildly, if you don't follow the orders and you may not even get to play the further rounds, but that's another issue, isn't it?>

i guess that's more about how you look at it as anything else: the team captain can't stop you from blundering your queen on purpose either, if you want to sabotage; similarly, not following your team captain's orders is equivalent to resigning from the team.

but i think you're right that there are no <formal> rules that force you to do what your captain says. but indeed you should! :o)

thanks, bv - your additional comments were very useful in complementing my response; sometimes i happen to take things for granted that i really shouldn't.

on second thought i now better understand where octavia's misunderstanding probably is rooted: the term "inflation" makes people think of money & currencies; what you get (goods, services) for a certain amount expresses essentially the *value* of your currency, and it diminishes when there is inflation. hence, the difference in value of a *fixed* difference in the currency becomes smaller. or, in the flawed analogy, the diff in strength (value) becomes smaller with a fixed rating gap (diff in the relevant currency).

however, the "currency" of the rating system is *not* actually the rating numbers: <the currency is rating *differences*> for all practical purposes. rating diffs translate to diffs in results and vice versa - and this relationship is fixed and not subject to any kinds of inflation.

fide's own use and talk of the rating system is misleading, too, as they try to impose a (persistent) mapping from skills to rating numbers, thereby turning the number itself into the currency, but rating numbers only describe results within a given pool of players, over a *limited* time span; at no point are "chess skills" measured directly.

as long as the "systemic inflation" (my term) is very moderate, which it is, people can use rating progress as a measure of improvement for themselves, within a limited time span; i.e. not much more than ca 5 years, after which *other external changes* are starting to have potential impact. hence, moderate systemic inflation is no problem for the two tasks a purely *result-based* rating system possibly can offer:

1) provide a quite reliable ranking of current (contemporary) players according to the skills *currently* required to be successful

2) provide a decent measure of improvement for developing players (seen in a reasonable short-term perspective)

trying to use the ratings for much more than that will be an exercise in folly.

I saw an historical rating list a little while ago (it annoys me I can't find it again, even though it is in one of my Sahovski Informators!) where players had some sort of ELO rating and then a three digit number expressing rating stability. Do you know that list?

I thought the 3 digit number interesting. 200 would indicate low rating stability. Players like Kasparov, Fischer. Leko had numbers around 150ish, ie. more stability. It corresponds to my impressions, especially because Ivanchuk had a high number, which simply rings true because of his "ability" to play a brilliant tourney one week and then have a disaster within weeks in another.

frogbert: swt, i'm not sure if i've seen the list(s) you have in mind, but the idea of adding some measure of the reliability/stability of ratings is an old one. it can be done in numerous ways, obviously, and i'm not sure what's the better approach. i guess it slightly depends on what one wants to express.

maybe the main benefit of having something like that part of the *official* lists would be to communicate the intrinsic uncertainty of the measure.

Klas Recke: Hi all
Regarding the rating inflation, if we do a comparison with money inflation i.e. what causes money to inflate? Isn't it that the money supply is expanding? Can't it be the same thing with ELO-rating?

What I mean is if more and more players get entitled to an ELO-rating due to more players are being rated as well as lowering the level for getting an ELO-rating, couldn't that add to the present "ELO inflation"?

Another thing to look at could be the international football rating that ranks all national football teams in the world, which I think is using the ELO formula. Since there aren't to many new countries added on that list it could be interesting to compare if the football rating is suffering from inflation. Haven't checked myself so I might be way off here.

frogbert: <if we do a comparison with money inflation i.e. what causes money to inflate? Isn't it that the money supply is expanding? Can't it be the same thing with ELO-rating?>

inflation due to an increase in the "rating supply"?

i think we rather see other mechanisms at work. see my post on this page of may 4th, where my point is that rating points are *not* the real currency of the rating systems - rating *differences* are. this realization - if really understood - is the clue to why most of the talk we hear about "rating inflation" doesn't make much sense. also, it directly follows that "adjusting for inflation" is a meaningless concept, more or less.

it *is* possible to do some kind of "rating bookkeeping" in terms of the <systemic changes> - i.e. whether players on average are higher or lower rated over time. but data like that (which i have calculated for rating lists since july 1990) don't really hold any information about chess skills, *either* way. my calculations of *systemic inflation* do have a purpose in showing that the ridiculous amounts sometimes suggested (by definitions like that of sonas) are really <way off> in overestimating the systemic inflation (a feeling i had long before i started doing the math, btw).

in a very crude form the technical reason for the modest amount of inflation that we see is that improving players earn a little more rating points than the declining players lose, presumedly over the K=10 and K=15 boundary.

(players who have had 2400 or more in an official list are rated with a K of 10, while other players (after having played 30 games) are rated with a K of 15. hence, when one of each kind meet, the gain/loss isn't symmetrical.)

achieve: <frogbert> Apologies I didn't follow up on your question to me at doms on short notice, but time was scarce - but surely if you wish I'd be willing to answer your question(s) you last formulated at dom's forum.

Agenda 21 is being kept away from public discussion as long as possible. Fine. They don't ask, do they? Why

Divide the masses into several groups. Make sure you enter a legislative body that allows you to enforce unilaterally, and reach decisions that serve the common good: collectivist, decisions. People want to believe in strong enforcement, coupled with peace and environment loving leaders.

In that dynamic lies my premier worry and leaning to blueprint for oppression, and worse. But of course it will be felt as beneficial almost in every walk of life that we have until now accepted, enjoyed, and allowed a fair amount of regulation on.

As I said I do seriously feel and know from study the current western lifestyle is unsustainable, but that conclusion MIGHT be just a starting point to address collectively what we think should happen, in case of an A?B?C? scenario.

There are still options, great optioos, and they should be discussed in DETAIL !!

Start it off - Europe is on the brink - we need to think about what steps and measures are we ushered in to.

As it happens NOW - current - we are forced to take extra care and employ extra caution and surveillance. While we still can.!

Erm - what I meant was that back in 1992 when the Rio Earth Summit was held and Agenda 21 regulation and legislation was ratified, it was done so with hardly any popular awareness, to put it mildly, as the Media at the time was dominated by the horrific war in former Yugoslavia, but even if it wouldn't have been, UN legislation of all kinds permeates and often overrides national legislation, "unannounced", and thereby openly yet covertly eroding and nullifying national sovereignty, including many peronal freedoms and constitutional rights of the individual.

One assumes a large portion of Parliament (here) was well aware of this, and would have raised their voices, informed their constituents, the public, but such usually, or evidently, does not happen, for a variety of reasons.

Is this conspiratorial in nature?

Depends on the definition, and your interpretation of it. And which players on various levels are involved. I prefer to just follow where the evidence leads.

So I say yes, and loudly at that, even though it is partially "in the open", as confirmed by HG Wells. <The Open Conspiracy> is one of Wells's essays on working towards a utopian society. In it, he describes how everyone in the world could take part in an "Open Conspiracy" which would "adjust our dislocated world." Wells attempts to show how political, social, and religious differences could be reconciled, resulting in a more unified, inter-cooperating human race.

As you know Bush sr announced it openly in his 1990 State of the Union address as "sacred principals enshrined in the UN Charter" that will govern and rule the "conduct of Nations."

"If we are successful, and we will be...", GHW said in his creepy voice.

- - - - - -

I responded here since both our forums are closed, and <pgp> forum is off limits for you i assumed.

I hope this contribution was an improved attempt to answer your question, and I am curious as to your thoughts on this matter.

achieve: Well, your personal player page indeed has an enjoyable atmosphere of quietude circulating in it, so a discussion, or exchange rather, on this interesting subject - between two intelligent, well-mannered males - might prove to be very fruitful. We're not in a hurry whatsoever, so take your time, <frog>. ;)

frogbert: sorry, achieve - i do intend to get back to you on the subject, and in particular because i was the one who initiated this exchange. but i haven't yet taken upon me to invest the time needed to write a knowledgable reply; i started reading various documents from the un's agenda 21 web pages and did for instance go through the initial 1992 rio declaration (annex I) and some other documents - but then it dropped a few places on my priority list.

except a few 2-line comments here and there, i've only invested some time on the thematic team challenge on cg.com in the past week. i remain curious about the topic, though, and i'll certainly get back to you.

achieve: <frogbert> I understand, and thanks for the clarification. In this day and age we all are basically all the time, lacking time, due to our multiple, simultaneous, daily on- and off-line activities.

My advice when studying the "UN", is to not delve "too deeply" (I know this may sound contradictory but you get what I mean: keep an eye on, and look for, the big picture, and develop an in depth, as well as "over"view) in the details of a certain (Rio 1992) meeting, but try and get a grip as soon as possible on the Vision behind it, its origins, and the visions of the key players that gave way to its birth. It's all rather in the open, even the larger long-term aims of a dominantly powerful supra-national Governing Body, yet it is rarely discussed in that fashion in mainstream reporting.

Memethecat: Hi frogbert, do you know what's happened to our friend? is he OK? I know this place can become..annoying, so maybe its just a holiday from here, but his last post suggested something was happening in the 'real world', maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, hope you are well too.

frogbert: meme, i have no idea, but i'm slightly concerned because he usually gives us a "warning" if he's got plans that involve staying away from cg.com briefly (days...)

i think there are a couple ceegee-inhabitants that know and occasionally see g in real life, and i was kind of hoping one of them would shed some light on the disappearance. but alas, no such luck yet.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.